If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Ugh...reading through this, I see why the Buddha said that metaphysical questions were a wasteful distraction. We have a young woman--make that, at least two young women--who were abused and potentially raped by a man in authority over them, with the organization at least trying to conceal it from public disclosure and possibly trying to smear the victim once it was revealed, and we're lost in the specifics of how God speaks to us, whether by the absence of a no or by a vision or by "it's not a bad idea"? Doesn't that seem a bit...academic, and in a sort of disgusting way?

Ok, maybe not or you wouldn't be participating in it. Or maybe this is everyone's way of coping with a really ugly turn of events, given that you can't do anything about it, and you'd like to still be members of said Church. I guess that's what discussion boards are for sometimes. Really, that a leader made a mistake in choosing a MTC president (if it even was a mistake) is so far from the center of my discomfort with this whole situation that I have a hard time empathizing with the concern. People make mistakes. Duh. And people hurt each other. Also, duh. No one can control that or foresee it. We can do some things to prevent it, but I hardly put "better revelatory power" in that list. I do put transparency near the top, and there I see some major issues.

So...to my point of coming back here. One of my big concerns in the recent revelations is this potential smearing of the victim. I don't know if this has been discussed, but the leaking of the disciplinary council events (or anything else, really) to Greg Bishop is a huge ethical issue. I've read discussions among a few attorneys on facebook (no, not niku), who all have said that there is no way that this "outside counsel" would have done this without the Church's direction. If that's true, I don't think there's any way to defend that. However, given that information would have the Church's fingerprints all over it, I see that as incredibly reckless and possibly illegal (wrt adoption info), with inevitable PR consequences, which seems out of character for the Church. It's also remarkably malicious, and, as misguided as I think the Church often is, I think it's rarely if ever malicious. So I have a hard time believing it and wanted to hear the other side. Ideas on how or why that would have happened?

Last edited by ERCougar; 04-06-2018 at 08:11 AM.

At least the Big Ten went after a big-time addition in Nebraska; the Pac-10 wanted a game so badly, it added Utah
-Berry Trammel, 12/3/10

I was asked to sustain that Hinckley had the ability to receive revelation from God about Bishop, his abilities and deficiencies and past choices. (The prophet/seer part would seem to say he could also have the ability to know what would happen as Nephi was shown the beginning to the end and all detail in between, without that changing anyone’s agency, but I’ll accept your belief that prophesy or acting as a seer requires infallibility of the person sustained to those callings as well as that it would’ve limited Bishop’s agency.)

Does saying that Hinckley could’ve asked the Lord to reveal to him if the grey area of Bishop’s past might disqualify him from service require a belief of infallibility? Do we not believe that the 1P and Q12 have this spiritual gift for items such as callings or only certain callings? What things are they able to see trough the grey on?

Am I allowed to be a TR holder who says that I believe they have this power except for when they don’t? Because, it has always been a yes or no belief question to me in the interview. If we believe they only have it at certain times, are we as members allowed to know what times this power is used and what times it isn’t?

I’m truly happy that you and others don’t find any incongruity in this event. Sadly, I do. Cardiac ealrlier said stop believing in mystical powers, Lebowski and Creek seem to be hedging between don’t believe in mystical powers all the time just sometimes. I love the church, it makes me happy to be a member and attend. Am I asked to sacrifice all I have to God leading all decisions, or a group that is very good people doing their absolute best? Because I’m in, but I’d like to know which one I belong to.

I think I like this comment the best. It shows an honest discomfort with what's happened, but also an acknowledgement of why most people are bending over backwards to defend things--they like being a member of this group and believe it makes them better people. Distant events pale pretty quickly when held up against personal experiences. (Ex-mos would do really well to grasp this concept)

At least the Big Ten went after a big-time addition in Nebraska; the Pac-10 wanted a game so badly, it added Utah
-Berry Trammel, 12/3/10

Ugh...reading through this, I see why the Buddha said that metaphysical questions were a wasteful distraction. We have a young woman--make that, at least two young women--who were abused and potentially raped by a man in authority over them, with the organization at least trying to conceal it from public disclosure and possibly trying to smear the victim once it was revealed, and we're lost in the specifics of how God speaks to us, whether by the absence of a no or by a vision or by "it's not a bad idea"? Doesn't that seem a bit...academic, and in a sort of disgusting way?

Ok, maybe not or you wouldn't be participating it. Or maybe this is everyone's way of coping with a really ugly turn of events, given that you can't do anything about it, and you'd like to still be members of said Church. I guess that's what discussion boards are for sometimes. Really, that a leader made a mistake in choosing a MTC president (if it even was a mistake) is so far from the center of my discomfort with this whole situation that I have a hard time empathizing with the concern. People make mistakes. Duh. And people hurt each other. Also, duh. No one can control that or foresee it. We can do some things to prevent it, but I hardly put "better revelatory power" in that list. I do put transparency near the top, and there I see some major issues.

So...to my point of coming back here. One of my big concerns in the recent revelations is this potential smearing of the victim. I don't know if this has been discussed, but the leaking of the disciplinary council events to Greg Bishop is a huge ethical issue. I've read discussions among a few attorneys on facebook (no, not niku), who all have said that there is no way that this "outside counsel" would have done this without the Church's direction. If that's true, I don't think there's any way to defend that. However, given that information would have the Church's fingerprints all over it, I see that as incredibly reckless and possibly illegal (wrt adoption info), with inevitable PR consequences, which seems out of character for the Church. It's also remarkably malicious, and, as misguided as I think the Church often is, I think it's rarely if ever malicious. So I have a hard time believing it and wanted to hear the other side. Ideas on how or why that would have happened?

Agree it's a distraction and shouldn't be a discussion point. But you have it wrong on why it's being discussed. Church critics bring it up as a way to make fun of church members or otherwise prove why the church is not true. And then people jump in to argue why that's a dumb criticism.

Agree it's a distraction and shouldn't be a discussion point. But you have it wrong on why it's being discussed. Church critics bring it up as a way to make fun of church members or otherwise prove why the church is not true. And then people jump in to argue why that's a dumb criticism.

Ok, fair enough. I agree--it's a dumb criticism. I don't think most thoughtful (in my mind--haha) critics care much about that one.

EDIT: Ok, I take that back a little bit. I see what HFN/wuap/others are saying about what the Church claims, and I agree they ought to step back their claims there. It just doesn't really resonate with me. Maybe I gave up that standard a long time ago as a sort of understood Mormonspeak (like "I know that God lives").

Last edited by ERCougar; 04-06-2018 at 08:20 AM.

At least the Big Ten went after a big-time addition in Nebraska; the Pac-10 wanted a game so badly, it added Utah
-Berry Trammel, 12/3/10

So...to my point of coming back here. One of my big concerns in the recent revelations is this potential smearing of the victim. I don't know if this has been discussed, but the leaking of the disciplinary council events (or anything else, really) to Greg Bishop is a huge ethical issue. I've read discussions among a few attorneys on facebook (no, not niku), who all have said that there is no way that this "outside counsel" would have done this without the Church's direction. If that's true, I don't think there's any way to defend that. However, given that information would have the Church's fingerprints all over it, I see that as incredibly reckless and possibly illegal (wrt adoption info), with inevitable PR consequences, which seems out of character for the Church. It's also remarkably malicious, and, as misguided as I think the Church often is, I think it's rarely if ever malicious. So I have a hard time believing it and wanted to hear the other side. Ideas on how or why that would have happened?

We haven't discussed that component of the case much yet. On the surface it looks bad, but I am hoping we get more info than a few attorneys on FB.

This whole thing is horrible from start to finish.

"There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
"It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
"Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

On an unrelated note, I was hoping ER would return from his Eastern voyage somewhat enlightened. With a new drum, perhaps. But if his work this morning on fb and CS are any indication, it looks like he merely picked up a new mallet.

Last edited by Donuthole; 04-06-2018 at 09:57 AM.

Prepare to put mustard on those words, for you will soon be consuming them, along with this slice of humble pie that comes direct from the oven of shame set at gas mark “egg on your face”! -- Moss

There are three rules that I live by: never get less than twelve hours sleep; never play cards with a guy who has the same first name as a city; and never get involved with a woman with a tattoo of a dagger on her body. Now you stick to that, and everything else is cream cheese. --Coach Finstock

I’m sitting on a couch in Fred Meyer waiting for LDC’s snow tires to be taken off next door at Les Schwab. As I was reading two overhead lights went on making the whole area much brighter. Don’t tell me not to believe in mystical powers Cardiac!

the question is central to the discussion, knucklehead. what is the point of having a called and set apart mouthpiece of god on earth if we’re all playing a guessing game about the fidelity of that persons stagements and actions vis a vis god? how is that different from any other smart person?

You're assuming that God wasn't OK with Bishop being called into that position. There's no way you can know that.

On an unrelated note, I was hoping ER would return from his Eastern voyage somewhat enlightened. With a new drum, perhaps. But if his work this morning on fb and CS are any indication, it looks like he merely picked up a new mallet.

Strange mixed metaphor aside, I'll point out that my complete FB/CS activity of the last week has consisted of: 1) some desperate attempts to capture some nice photos in what is generally a craphole of a city, 2) arguing with some attorneys that victim-smearing seems really out of character for the church, and 3) a little rant about people too easily triggered into ridiculousness. And then the above. I'll go find a new drumstick to hammer this dead horse.

At least the Big Ten went after a big-time addition in Nebraska; the Pac-10 wanted a game so badly, it added Utah
-Berry Trammel, 12/3/10

Strange mixed metaphor aside, I'll point out that my complete FB/CS activity of the last week has consisted of: 1) some desperate attempts to capture some nice photos in what is generally a craphole of a city, 2) arguing with some attorneys that victim-smearing seems really out of character for the church, and 3) a little rant about people too easily triggered into ridiculousness. And then the above. I'll go find a new drumstick to hammer this dead horse.

Prepare to put mustard on those words, for you will soon be consuming them, along with this slice of humble pie that comes direct from the oven of shame set at gas mark “egg on your face”! -- Moss

There are three rules that I live by: never get less than twelve hours sleep; never play cards with a guy who has the same first name as a city; and never get involved with a woman with a tattoo of a dagger on her body. Now you stick to that, and everything else is cream cheese. --Coach Finstock

So...to my point of coming back here. One of my big concerns in the recent revelations is this potential smearing of the victim. I don't know if this has been discussed, but the leaking of the disciplinary council events (or anything else, really) to Greg Bishop is a huge ethical issue. I've read discussions among a few attorneys on facebook (no, not niku), who all have said that there is no way that this "outside counsel" would have done this without the Church's direction. If that's true, I don't think there's any way to defend that. However, given that information would have the Church's fingerprints all over it, I see that as incredibly reckless and possibly illegal (wrt adoption info), with inevitable PR consequences, which seems out of character for the Church. It's also remarkably malicious, and, as misguided as I think the Church often is, I think it's rarely if ever malicious. So I have a hard time believing it and wanted to hear the other side. Ideas on how or why that would have happened?

I'm probably just a jaded, cynical defense attorney, but it seems like about 50% of allegations you see in civil complaints these days are complete bullshit. I would take everything in the complaint with a huge grain of salt. When she comes forward with some actual evidence to back her claims up, things could get interesting. On the face of it, though, these seems like a suit that was brought for the purpose of embarrassing the Church and extorting a settlement than actually proving her story true.

I guess it seems odd that God would want His chosen leader to rape people trying to serve Him. But, you are right I don’t think we’ve considered that option.

I never said anything like that. I believe in a God that has the power to stop all bad things from happening to anyone. But he chooses not to use that power sometimes, for whatever reason. On this occasion, he let the bad thing happen. That doesn’t mean he WANTED it to happen.

If you’ve never considered that God may be OK with letting bad things happen to good people sometimes, then you haven’t thought very deeply about the nature of God.

I'm probably just a jaded, cynical defense attorney, but it seems like about 50% of allegations you see in civil complaints these days are complete bullshit. I would take everything in the complaint with a huge grain of salt. When she comes forward with some actual evidence to back her claims up, things could get interesting. On the face of it, though, these seems like a suit that was brought for the purpose of embarrassing the Church and extorting a settlement than actually proving her story true.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I don't think the leaking of documents to Greg Bishop is really in dispute, and predated the lawsuit. But I guess we'll see.

At least the Big Ten went after a big-time addition in Nebraska; the Pac-10 wanted a game so badly, it added Utah
-Berry Trammel, 12/3/10

I'm probably just a jaded, cynical defense attorney, but it seems like about 50% of allegations you see in civil complaints these days are complete bullshit. I would take everything in the complaint with a huge grain of salt. When she comes forward with some actual evidence to back her claims up, things could get interesting. On the face of it, though, these seems like a suit that was brought for the purpose of embarrassing the Church and extorting a settlement than actually proving her story true.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Right, but do you blame her? She got raped by the MTC president and she went to her bishop and then to Elder Asay at church headquarters and everyone blew her off, even when Asay had information that Bishop was suspect.

Mormon WikiLeaks (MormonLeaks)

Originally Posted by jay santos

Right, but do you blame her? She got raped by the MTC president and she went to her bishop and then to Elder Asay at church headquarters and everyone blew her off, even when Asay had information that Bishop was suspect.

I don’t blame her for wanting to speak out and for being angry with the Church and wanting to get some revenge. If what she is alleging is not supported by any evidence, though, I blame her attorney for abusing the legal system.

There's difference in not wanting it. And not allowing it. It's very obvious just by looking around that God allows a lot of horrible things to happen in this world.

Yes, we all accept that. That is not the same as God’s chosen leader being the person doing horrible things in the world. (I realize many exMos would disagree with this stance, I’m looking from the view of a believer)

God allows calamities and awful things to happen, to me that’s far different than God’s vessel being the delivery of the awful thing.

I was asked to sustain that Hinckley had the ability to receive revelation from God about Bishop, his abilities and deficiencies and past choices. (The prophet/seer part would seem to say he could also have the ability to know what would happen as Nephi was shown the beginning to the end and all detail in between, without that changing anyone’s agency, but I’ll accept your belief that prophesy or acting as a seer requires infallibility of the person sustained to those callings as well as that it would’ve limited Bishop’s agency.)

Does saying that Hinckley could’ve asked the Lord to reveal to him if the grey area of Bishop’s past might disqualify him from service require a belief of infallibility? Do we not believe that the 1P and Q12 have this spiritual gift for items such as callings or only certain callings? What things are they able to see trough the grey on?

Am I allowed to be a TR holder who says that I believe they have this power except for when they don’t? Because, it has always been a yes or no belief question to me in the interview. If we believe they only have it at certain times, are we as members allowed to know what times this power is used and what times it isn’t?

I’m truly happy that you and others don’t find any incongruity in this event. Sadly, I do. Cardiac ealrlier said stop believing in mystical powers, Lebowski and Creek seem to be hedging between don’t believe in mystical powers all the time just sometimes. I love the church, it makes me happy to be a member and attend. Am I asked to sacrifice all I have to God leading all decisions, or a group that is very good people doing their absolute best? Because I’m in, but I’d like to know which one I belong to.

Originally Posted by HuskyFreeNorthwest

So did the changes at conference come from revelation to a prophet, or good ideas of the best exceptional men to live on earth at this time? See following the counsel of either a prophet or the most exceptional person is good enough for me. I’m all in. I just want to know which one I’m all in.

If the Bishop situation is just an accident of fallible men, why not just admit such, offer apologies and possibly restitution and move forward. Why comment on the victim’s behaviors and membership in the church?

Originally Posted by swampfrog

The Bishop situation has only got 2 real options. One, this is an example of the fallibility of the brethren. They thought they had received inspiration that God did not send. Or two, God called him, but he fell from grace.

I disagree. Your statement above encapsulates the thinking of many members struggling with this issue (including possibly HFN and Moliere). I don't see it as an either/or kind of thing at all.

The truth of the matter is that God doesn't really give a shit who the middle-level managers are (down to and including Mission Presidents, Stake Presidents, Bishops, and quorum presidents). The power hierarchy of the bureaucratic organization that is "The Church" is no different (and I submit) no more inspired than any other corporation out there in the world. Corporations make informed decisions as to who to hire and fill vacancies based on references, previous experience, and a myriad of other tangible qualifications (such as the ability to pass a background check) as well as other intangibles such as interview performance and/or dress appearance. The "hiring" practices of the Corporation of the Church of LDS is no different in this regard and you should expect no less than an imperfect record of middle-level management hires.

The extreme vertical organization of the LDS corporation structure concentrates power at the top, where, not coincidentally the same persons we sustain as "prophets, seers, and revelators" in their roles as APOSTLES OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST act as the CEO and the Board of Directors. You might argue that God has a hand in creating and tweaking and guiding the day-to-day affairs of that structure, but I wouldn't. Low-level managers (EQPs, Bishops, SPs, et al), middle-managers (area 70s), and top management (Q15) all have a "line of authority" over those they directly supervise... and again - I suppose - you could argue that there is some kind of divine guidance to how that authority is "hired" (or called) and operates within the Church as a corporation, but I wouldn't.

In short, I think HFN and Moliere and swampfrog err when they conflate the roles of our leaders. They should heed well the words of the Man in Black: "Get used to disappointment."

Descartes, Hume, and Kant, Popper and Lorenz, and Wang Chung all agree with me.

You're actually pretty funny when you aren't being a complete a-hole....so basically like 5% of the time. --Art Vandelay

I would rather take a political risk in pursuit of peace, than to risk peace in pursuit of politics. --President Donald J. Trump

Anyone can make war, but only the most courageous can make peace. --President Donald J. Trump

You furnish the pictures, and I’ll furnish the war. --William Randolph Hearst

Yes, we all accept that. That is not the same as God’s chosen leader being the person doing horrible things in the world. (I realize many exMos would disagree with this stance, I’m looking from the view of a believer)

God allows calamities and awful things to happen, to me that’s far different than God’s vessel being the delivery of the awful thing.

Have you always believed that all church leaders never make errors, never offend or never sin with respect to executing their offices within the church? If you have ever accepted that possibility then this is really no different, just to a matter of degree. Bishops make errors and sin ALL THE TIME. SPs do too. Mission Presidents say some crazy stuff. I have no doubt that some of these guys have sinned pretty badly in connection with their offices. If you can accept/recognize any imperfection among leaders in executing their callings, then I dont understand wy this one doesnt fit.

I fully recognize just how terribkle it was for him to do what he apparently did (although I agree that a lot of the complaint must be viewed skeptically for now, his admissions in the recording were bad enough), but it is just another variant of imperfection and sin among men, some of who end up being leaders.

I disagree. Your statement above encapsulates the thinking of many members struggling with this issue (including possibly HFN and Moliere). I don't see it as an either/or kind of thing at all.

The truth of the matter is that God doesn't really give a shit who the middle-level managers are (down to and including Mission Presidents, Stake Presidents, Bishops, and quorum presidents). The power hierarchy of the bureaucratic organization that is "The Church" is no different (and I submit) no more inspired than any other corporation out there in the world. Corporations make informed decisions as to who to hire and fill vacancies based on references, previous experience, and a myriad of other tangible qualifications (such as the ability to pass a background check) as well as other intangibles such as interview performance and/or dress appearance. The "hiring" practices of the Corporation of the Church of LDS is no different in this regard and you should expect no less than an imperfect record of middle-level management hires.

The extreme vertical organization of the LDS corporation structure concentrates power at the top, where, not coincidentally the same persons we sustain as "prophets, seers, and revelators" in their roles as APOSTLES OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST act as the CEO and the Board of Directors. You might argue that God has a hand in creating and tweaking and guiding the day-to-day affairs of that structure, but I wouldn't. Low-level managers (EQPs, Bishops, SPs, et al), middle-managers (area 70s), and top management (Q15) all have a "line of authority" over those they directly supervise... and again - I suppose - you could argue that there is some kind of divine guidance to how that authority is "hired" (or called) and operates within the Church as a corporation, but I wouldn't.

In short, I think HFN and Moliere and swampfrog err when they conflate the roles of our leaders. They should heed well the words of the Man in Black: "Get used to disappointment."

Descartes, Hume, and Kant, Popper and Lorenz, and Wang Chung all agree with me.

The ranks of Deists swell.

I can't say I agree with your characterization. But in effect, you are right. God doesn't stage manage the church organization. He lets it unfold in all its messy and error-filled way.

Moreover, I think that this idea of Deism actually fits pretty well with mormon doctrinal tenets, apart from a lot of the hyperbole that goes along with them. But that is a discussion for another time, right after Falafel gets back to Wuap's post, perhaps.

Yes, we all accept that. That is not the same as God’s chosen leader being the person doing horrible things in the world. (I realize many exMos would disagree with this stance, I’m looking from the view of a believer)

God allows calamities and awful things to happen, to me that’s far different than God’s vessel being the delivery of the awful thing.

I don't get it. God allows some men to do horrible things, but not the one's he's chosen?

Ain't it like most people, I'm no different. We love to talk on things we don't know about.

"The only one of us who is so significant that Jeff owes us something simply because he decided to grace us with his presence is falafel." -- All-American

Your take seems incredibly naive (edit: creekster said it better and with more tact).

I hope you aren't using this as your justification for leaving the Church! That would be very mpfunk of you.

I’m not going anywhere. I’ve already reiterated that. I’m willing to be naive like a child I guess. You say middle management isn’t influenced by God. I say all of my experiences in church are being instructed that these callings are issued after thoughtful prayer and inspiration from God. Most recently when we got a new SP an apostle told us that God not the apostle had called this man to lead us. So is that lie just more fallibility of the apostle or confusion of an old man or was he telling us that God did in fact reveal to him who to call?

So as I asked earlier am I being asked to sacrifice my allowance and play time to God leading this or exceptional men who do their best but are sometimes going to say stupid things and rape? I’m in, I love being in, but I’d like to know. Because at present they aren’t saying “We’re exceptional men who sometimes say dumb things and rape” they are saying we are prophets, seers and revelators and we ask that you will state that you believe we are such to be fully immersed in Mormonism.

I’m not going anywhere. I’ve already reiterated that. I’m willing to be naive like a child I guess. You say middle management isn’t influenced by God. I say all of my experiences in church are being instructed that these callings are issued after thoughtful prayer and inspiration from God. Most recently when we got a new SP an apostle told us that God not the apostle had called this man to lead us. So is that lie just more fallibility of the apostle or confusion of an old man or was he telling us that God did in fact reveal to him who to call?

So as I asked earlier am I being asked to sacrifice my allowance and play time to God leading this or exceptional men who do their best but are sometimes going to say stupid things and rape? I’m in, I love being in, but I’d like to know. Because at present they aren’t saying “We’re exceptional men who sometimes say dumb things and rape” they are saying we are prophets, seers and revelators and we ask that you will state that you believe we are such to be fully immersed in Mormonism.

I understand your sentiment, and I don't think you are being naive or that it is unreasonable for you to ask the question you have in your second paragraph. Firstly, I have never heard a one (apostle) state that they are exceptional. On the contrary. That is something that members say, or believe to one degree or another.

I have stated before that it is best to wait and see, and weigh all of the evidence concerning what may have occurred. That being said, I am on record as stating that those who may have been in a position to council with this woman, and if they chose not to take her accusations seriously, should themselves be disciplined.

With regards to discernment and callings, it is dangerous to have unrealistic expectations about what can or cannot be foreseen by an inspired leader. No one here attempted to answer my questions yesterday in that regard. Precisely because there is no mechanism available to mankind that will allow us to ever truly discern and predict another persons choices. Agency is paramount to God's plan. It cannot be taken from us, no matter how much Decartes et al (might) disagree.

Have you always believed that all church leaders never make errors, never offend or never sin with respect to executing their offices within the church? If you have ever accepted that possibility then this is really no different, just to a matter of degree. Bishops make errors and sin ALL THE TIME. SPs do too. Mission Presidents say some crazy stuff. I have no doubt that some of these guys have sinned pretty badly in connection with their offices. If you can accept/recognize any imperfection among leaders in executing their callings, then I dont understand wy this one doesnt fit.

I fully recognize just how terribkle it was for him to do what he apparently did (although I agree that a lot of the complaint must be viewed skeptically for now, his admissions in the recording were bad enough), but it is just another variant of imperfection and sin among men, some of who end up being leaders.

Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak

Your take seems incredibly naive (edit: creekster said it better and with more tact).

I hope you aren't using this as your justification for leaving the Church! That would be very mpfunk of you.

What HFNW is asking, gentlemen, is where do you draw a line? Where does God draw a line? Is there a line? Could there be a line? If there is no line, what's the point of having an interview before, during, or after about worthiness to hold a calling? If you can do, apparently, almost anything, and get and/or remain in a calling, what does any of it matter?

Juxtapose that with, say, maybe, a board member who, you know, was serving a mission, and felt guilty about something they had done BEFORE their mission, felt godly sorrow, confessed it, and was sent home in disgrace, and only had one person even treat them like a human being when he got home early from his mission. Consider that perspective.

HFNW is asking, truly, if there is any Providence in this world, at all, when does it come in? As missionaries we preach that "God is no respecter of persons," but if you're that young man sent home early, reading about this guy getting to remain as MISSION PRESIDENT, later called as the <REDACTED> <REDACTED> <REDACTED> MTC PRESIDENT, I can see, easily, how you might begin to wonder, you know, what the <Redacting><Redacted>, God?

"Yeah, but never trust a Ph.D who has an MBA as well. The PhD symbolizes intelligence and discipline. The MBA symbolizes lust for power." -- Katy Lied